February 24, 2010
Feb 24 03:16 The DFL's Priorities Feb 24 03:51 Pawlenty Shines, Richardson Spins Feb 24 09:38 Tarryl Wants to Fight For Pork? Feb 24 11:03 The St. Cloud Times' Criticizes Republicans' Responsible Behavior Feb 24 15:02 Sen. Barrasso Blogger Conference Notes Feb 24 19:20 Now THAT'S Brilliant
Prior Months: Jan
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
The DFL's Priorities
It hasn't been difficult to figure out what the DFL's priorities are this session. Actually, I should say the DFL's priority because, thus far, the DFL's only priority has been to spend money. The DFL passed their annual stimulus bill , aka the bonding bill, Monday night. This time, they're spending over $1,000,000,000 to stimulate Minnesota's downtrodden economy. Based on recent past performance, I'm betting that the return on investment won't be good.
If that isn't enough, I found out that David Bly introduced a health care bill that will spend billions of dollars, which is money that we don't have:
During the first three and a half weeks of this session, we have heard no bills that save any money toward solving Minnesota's budget deficit. We have heard many bills that add to the cost or regulatory burden for Minnesotans. In fact, today, we will (again) hear Rep. David Bly's proposal for a full-blown government takeover of health care in Minnesota, a bill that would nearly double our state budget ($30+ billion) with no way to pay for it. In the face of a deep state budget deficit, this bill is more than irresponsible; it is outrageous. Committee deadlines have been set early, and it appears the majority has no interest in balancing our budget.As galling as the DFL's spending is, what's more galling is the DFL's refusal to do anything in terms of fixing Minnesota's budget deficit or building a entrepreneur-oriented, free market-based economy.
That the DFL hasn't focused on fixing the deficit says that the DFL's priorities have been corrupted by their special interest allies. They've put the interests of their construction union allies over (a) the need to fix the deficit and (b) the need to build a 21st century economy.
That isn't being responsive to the people. That's being responsive to their special interest allies' wishes. That's crony capitalism at its worst.
By comparison, Steve Gottwalt has again submitted his Healthy Minnesota Plan legislation for consideration:
We have also seen little willingness from the majority to work with theLast year, Steve's bill passed the Health Care and Human Services Policy and Oversight Committee with unanimous support , including from Tom Huntley and Paul Thissen. Steve's bill would save Minnesota's taxpers almost $700,000,000 per biennium. The reason it achieves those savings is because it's based on free market principles.
Governor's Office, or take up the helpful proposals and ideas the minority has offered, proposals that save real money toward responsibly balancing our state budget, and help sustain important state programs. These are not partisan "gotcha" proposals, but real, workable solutions that should be considered on a non-partisan basis.
For example, my bill to reform MinnesotaCare ( HF3036 ) so we can continue helping low income Minnesotans obtain affordable health care coverage, saves $334 million per year, money that would help us keep the promises we're making. However, the majority has so far declined to hear the bill, and has ignored invitations to work with us on a bi-partisan solution.
Unfortunately, Speaker Kelliher and other members of the DFL leadership are unwilling to give Steve's bill serious consideration. While that's disappointing, it isn't surprising. The DFL has been the status quo party since regaining the majority in the House. It's accurate to say that they haven't proposed any reforms since 2007.
It's accurate to say that they still believe in a 20th century model of government. That only thing that changes are the costs and the new programs, each of which relies on old policies.
The time has arrived that we revamp and reprioritize government. It's time that we ask hard questions on whether we need the programs that we're currently paying for. It's important to ask these questions because we must know whether there's costly replication of services and what the extent is that there are programs meant to appease a political crony.
We shouldn't be funding things that don't make Minnesota more prosperous or more secure. We shouldn't fund these things because we can't afford it and because taxpayers shouldn't foot the bill for paying off one's political allies. It's that simple.
The question facing the DFL is whether they'll do the adult thing and get to work on fixing this year's deficit while building tomorrow's economy. I'm betting that they fail on both counts.
Posted Wednesday, February 24, 2010 3:16 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 24-Feb-10 10:38 AM
Gary:
Maybe these people are so wealthy they don't realize a concept that lots of people face.
We can only write checks until our checkbook balance reaches zero.
Every payday me and lots of Minnesotans have to carefully decide what checks to mail in since we can't expect payment on checks if the account is at zero. This task is made more difficult for me since I have an unemployed roommate who can't qualify for unemployment. given Minnesota's unemployment rate lots of families go through this problem.
They spend money like they don't realize that there's no money in the checkbook.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Pawlenty Shines, Richardson Spins
Tuesday night, Tim Pawlenty and Bill Richardson were Larry King's first guests. Gov. Pawlenty shined while Gov. Richardson dutifully repeated the White House's talking points. It was a pathetic performance by Richardson. Here's an example of their performances:
KING: Governor, five Republican senators, including the new senator from Massachusetts, Scott Brown, broke ranks with their party. They're supporting a $15 billion jobs bill. A vote expected tomorrow. It could pass. Good idea, Governor Pawlenty?As you can see, Gov. Richardson's answers were the meandering type. Watching it, it was obvious he wasn't going to answer questions directly. He was nervous about answering questions directly. By contrast, Gov. Pawlenty answered King's questions directly and on point. His answers were concise, too, which showed a comfort level in answering the questions.
GOV. TIM PAWLENTY (R), MINNESOTA: Well, I don't personally agree with that because I don't like that particular bill and the approach that they took with it, Larry. But for those individuals, they're doing what they think is right for the country ask that and, you know, that's something that they've got to decide for themselves. And now we'll see what happens with the bill and whether it makes a positive difference.
KING: Were you surprised that five Republicans went with it?
PAWLENTY: Well, you know, it's, you know, it's not the type of bill that is so polarizing. I think they were disappointed that they took out a bunch of the Republican tax cuts earlier from an earlier version. But I don't think it's a complete surprise or a total surprise they, that they got at least a few Republican votes for it.
KING: Governor Richardson, what do you think of the bill?
GOV. BILL RICHARDSON (D), NEW MEXICO: Well, I might note that Senator Brown, the new senator from Massachusetts, voted for it. I think it's a good bill. It shows that President Obama is anxious for bipartisanship. This bill is needed. It -- it covers unemployment insurance. It covers a number of other benefits that are needed right now to -- to help people.
Hopefully, the next jobs bill is going to have some initiatives for small businesses to get capital, tax incentives for companies to create new jobs.
President Obama met with all of us governors yesterday and he was extremely bipartisan. It was a love feast. Republican governors were, Democratic governors thanking him for the stimulus bill, for the help that is coming to us, has come to us in highway jobs and education and keeping teachers and cops employed.
KING: But I was asking...
RICHARDSON: -- so I...
KING: -- only about the jobs bill.
RICHARDSON: Well, the jobs bill, I believe, is -- is necessary. Hopefully, the...
KING: OK...
Gov. Pawlenty's reply to Gov. Richardson's longwinded reply was succinct:
PAWLENTY: Well, Larry, can I just add one thing here, because I think this is very instructive to your larger question about is the government broken?It didn't take Gov. Pawlenty many words to highlight Harry Reid's partisanship, did it?
Not long ago, with a previous version of this bill. They had a lot of Republican support because they had some tax cuts in it. And then the Democrats removed those provisions from the bill and they lost almost all the Republican support over that maneuver, with a few exceptions that you noted. So instead of having a real bipartisan bill with lots of Republicans on the bill with the prior tentative agreement that they had, they basically, again, made it a very partisan bill -- a mostly a partisan bill.
On the subject of Thursday's health care summit, Gov. Richardson's answer was all over the place while Gov. Pawlenty's was concise:
KING: Let me touch a couple of other bases. Governor Richardson, what do you expect out of that summit on Thursday? Is that all politics?Summary: Richardson said that the summit was a great idea, that President Obama's plan was new and full of great ideas. Gov. Pawlenty said that President Obama's bill was a rehash of the Democrats' bills from the House and Senate, only more expensive. That's an accurate statement.
RICHARDSON: Well, no. The president has said he wants Republican ideas on health care. And I think you've seen Republicans basically reject his bipartisanship.
I am pleased that the president put forth a more modest bill that involves, I think, potential bipartisan compromises on preexisting condition, on insurance reforms, on insuring more Americans, on incentives for small businesses.
I believe it's a -- a good bill, a health care bill that hopefully will pass very soon in the House and Senate. And then we move on to more initiatives, as he said, on job creation, on the economy, on education reform.
He talked to us about standards and testing and improving our educational system as the core of our economy.
KING: Governor...
RICHARDSON: Again, I think, the president is -- is more than extending an olive branch. I hope the Republicans have some good ideas tomorrow that might be incorporated in this new health care bill.
KING: Governor Pawlenty, are you optimistic about Thursday?
PAWLENTY: Well, the president and the first lady were very gracious to have the governors at the White House and we appreciate their hospitality, Larry. But he's taken basically a 1970s jalopy and run it through the car wash and tried to declare it something new. It's still a 1970s jalopy.
It's a...it's a start, it's a discussion. But I think it's a prelude to make it look like they're reaching out to Republicans. Unless he actually incorporates some of our ideas and if he's just going to ram through this what amounts to what was the Senate Democrat version of the health bill, that's not bipartisanship. If he wants to be bipartisan, he could take some of the ideas, like medical malpractice reform or paying for performance rather than volumes of procedures and the like.
But so far, he's just basically compromising between two Democratic positions. He hasn't meaningfully incorporated some Republican ideas. And that would help a lot.
It's significantly more expensive than the House or Senate bill because President Obama is extending the Louisiana Purchase to all 50 states. He's also eliminating the Cadillac tax, which would've exempted the unions from approximately $60,000,000,000 over the next decade and untold billions more nationwide.
Thursday's summit is a fraud wrapped up in gimmicks and mirrors. It isn't a serious event. Nonetheless, I'll be watching.
Posted Wednesday, February 24, 2010 3:55 AM
No comments.
Tarryl Wants to Fight For Pork?
Tarryl Clark is quoted in this article as saying that Gov. Pawlenty isn't negotiating on the DFL's annual stimulus bill. Here's her exact quote:
Sen. Tarryl Clark, DFL-St. Cloud, says Pawlenty is unwilling to engage in give-and-take. "He wants basically his bill, which isn't a negotiation," Clark said.First, the 21,000 jobs created is an AFL-CIO figure which can't be verified by real economists. It might be right. Based on past projections, however, I'm more than skeptical of the AFL-CIO's number.
Clark says she'll continue lobbying for the bill to retain its St. Cloud projects, especially $15 million to expand the St. Cloud Civic Center. Clark and other DFL lawmakers say the overall bonding bill would create 21,000 jobs and build up schools, parks and infrastructure while interest rates and construction costs are low.
Second, what's the reason for negotiating over tens of millions of dollars of pork? That's being fiscally irresponsible. That's borrowing money that might lower Minnesota's bond rating, which will make future bonding projects that much more expensive.
Third, why should legislators put things like parks, trails, renovations to the Ordway and Orchestra Hall on the state's credit card? Shouldn't those projects be paid outright by revenue generated by the Legacy Act?
The DFL won't stop spending bonding money on the Ordway, Orchestra Hall and trails because it helps them spend more money. There's no doubt that they could opt for using Legacy Act funds to pay for the Ordway and Orchestra Hall. They won't do that, though, because that doesn't help them fund other projects on their special interest allies' wish lists.
It's important that we understand that the DFL's top priority , both this session and in all sessions, is to spend. Let's recall the proof that Larry Haws gave us at the League of Women's Voters Education Forum in September, 2007:
Steve Gottwalt had just said that we needed to do a better job prioritizing education spending, prompting Larry Haws to say "Maybe we do need to prioritize."I was there in the audience. When Larry said that, it wasn't said in jest. It was apparent that he'd never considered prioritizing spending. That mindset is a prominant, possibly even the dominant, characteristic in today's DFL.
It's one thing to spend money that benefits the state in general. While I don't agree with spending lots of money, I'll admit that it's possible to justify the expenditure. It's another to spend money that helps the DFL's special interest allies. There's no justification for that.
If Tarryl wants to fight on this hill, that's her choice. I wouldn't recommend it because it's fighting for a pork-filled bill at a time when the nation is rebelling against pork. Worse, she's fighting that fight in a district that abhors wasteful spending.
If Tarryl wants to fight for pork, that's her right as an elected official. It's just that that sort of thing will, at minimum, suspend her political career.
Posted Wednesday, February 24, 2010 9:38 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 24-Feb-10 10:28 AM
Gary:
Tarryl didn't get one other critical point. The governor thought okay if we're going to do a bonding bill (some thought we shouldn't do it immediately) that he said this is how much money we can afford to spend.
If I remember right the DFL proposed an extra $500 million above that and took out a bunch of things that the governor said were crucial such as the prisons.
Just curious where's the give and take. If the DFL said okay we're going to spend the same amount and we want different projects than the governor sitting down with the Senate and basically dividing it into half for them and half for the governor that's give and take!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by The Lady Logician at 24-Feb-10 12:52 PM
Let's not forget that the Ordway got almost $10M to redo the stage in 2006. How much more do they need?
LL
The St. Cloud Times' Criticizes Republicans' Responsible Behavior
This editorial by the St. Cloud Times' Editorial Board is a study in how the Agenda Media attempts to appear fair-minded but is operationally supportive of the DFL. Here's how they open their section on the DFL:
While DFL leaders should be praised for doing so much bonding "leg work" in advance of the session, those efforts do little good when the final product slaps the governor in the face, twice, hard.Later in the editorial they admit that there's a bunch of pork in the bill:
Slap one was the amount. Pawlenty first said a bill should not top $685 million. A week ago he raised that to $725 million. Meanwhile, the DFL put forth plans at $1 billion-plus before agreeing Monday on a $999.9 million plan.
So much for finding middle ground.
Not to be overlooked: While bonding bills are rich in "pork," Pawlenty has a point in questioning a bill that funds sculpture gardens and volleyball courts ahead of prison facilities.Fair enough. Until this part of the editorial:
Simple numbers tell the story of how Republican legislators are willing to let their party's agenda outweigh what's best for most Minnesotans. The bill passed the House 85-46 and cleared the Senate 47-19. Sixty-seven percent of lawmakers voted for it.The Times' logic appears to be that putting tons of debt on the state's credit card is ok because so many legislators voted to burden our state with pork. It obviously hasn't dawned on the Times' Editorial Board that the minority party did the right thing in opposing this irresponsible spending.
However, given overriding a veto takes five more (Republican) votes in the House, the reality is 2.5 percent of legislators are stopping passage of a bill that basically seven in 10 support.
It's also noteworthy that the Times didn't mention that the bill passed in both houses with almost unanimous DFL support and almost no GOP support. I think that would be an important piece of information because it would tell people which party was supportive of spending money irresponsibly and which party voted against fiscal irresponsibility.
This is why people are abandoning newspapers. They're starved for the information they need for making the right decisions. Leaving this information out sends a 'there's no difference between the parties' message. As the Times admits, that isn't supported by the facts. The DFL voted for fiscal irresponsibility by spending money that hasn't been earned yet while the GOP, with a couple exceptions, voted against spending irresponsibly.
It's time that the Times' Editorial Board started telling the whole story, not just the parts that favor its storyline.
Finally, I can't let it go that they cheapshotted Gov. Pawlenty like this:
Simply put, claims of "closed door" legislating ring hollow when you are in a different time zone.I'd label that a cheapshot because the Times' Editorial Board didn't mention that Gov. Pawlenty was in DC for the National Governors Association meetings. It also didn't mention that the NGA meetings included substantive meetings, including a session with First Lady Michelle Obama on the issue of childhood obesity and a meeting with President Obama.
It's time that the Times started including important facts like that instead of omitting them for scoring cheap political points.
Posted Wednesday, February 24, 2010 11:45 PM
Comment 1 by R-Five at 24-Feb-10 11:34 AM
"Simple numbers tell the story of how Republican legislators are willing to let their party's agenda outweigh what's best for most Minnesotans."
What an interesting sentence. "Agenda" could not possibly mean "principles" to this writer. Far more truthful would have been:
"Simple numbers tell the story of how Democratic legislators are willing to let their party's special interests outweigh what's best for most Minnesotans."
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 24-Feb-10 11:42 AM
Rex, Thanks for saying that so eloquently. That's exactly the point I was hoping to highlight.
Sen. Barrasso Blogger Conference Notes
I just finished participating in a blogger conference call hosted by Sen. John Barrasso, (R-WY). As most of you know, Sen. Barrasso operated an orthopedic clinic in Wyoming .
Sen. Barrasso talked briefly about what he knew about tomorrow's health care summit at Blair House. Sen. Barrasso is planning on attending, mostly with the goal of fighting against government inserting themselves into the doctor-patient relationship.
One of the bloggers asked how Dr. Barrasso would argue against the Democrats' sure charge that insurance companies are making record profits, etc. Dr. Barrasso said that he won't defend the insurance companies. At the same time, he made it clear that he isn't a fan of dealing with government bureaucrats, either.
I asked Dr. Barrasso what he thought about the Health Insurance Rate Authority that President Obama's plan would create. I noted that all 50 states have insurance commissioners already. Dr. Barrasso said that we should be wary of President Obama's provision creating that authority because the federal government shouldn't replicate the responsibilities that the state already handles.
Dr. Barrasso then said that this is what happens when an administration operates from the standpoint of 'never letting a good crisis go to waste.' I then interjected that we shouldn't let a good constitutional amendment, the Tenth to be precise, stand in the way of the Obama administration's plans. Dr. Barrasso picked up immediately on my sarcasm, then said that that would be a great line in defense of letting state insurance commissioners make their decisions.
I also got in the last question of the conference call. I prefaced my question by saying that it was clear that, which he still had a practice that Sen. Barrasso wasn't a fan of either government bureaucrats or insurance companies. I then asked if this isn't why HSAs shouldn't be a more prominent feature of health care reform going forward.
Sen. Barrasso said that HSAs should definitely be part of the health insurance reform equation. He then noted that the Demorats' various plans don't make use of HSAs to the point that people wouldn't even be allowed to use them to buy things like OTC drugs or insurance premiums. He said that patients having a little skin in the game (my term, not Sen. Barrasso's) is a good thing because it forces them to be better shoppers, which will drive down health care costs.
This isn't the first time I've asked my HSA question. What I find interesting is that everyone that I've asked about them thinks that they're an important part of health care reform. Sen. Barrasso is just the latest person who agrees with me and millions of health care consumers.
It's encouraging to know that Senate Republicans are starting to utilize BCCs more and more. It's my opinion that they're slowly but surely getting in touch with voters. Sen. Barrasso was a great host, too, because his answers were direct and concise. They weren't meandering and evasive like Bill Richardson's answers the other night on Larry King.
Posted Wednesday, February 24, 2010 3:34 PM
No comments.
Now THAT'S Brilliant
Unfortunately, there haven't been nearly enough times in the last 5 years where I could say that Republicans did something I thought was brilliant. Apparently, that drought is ending:
Washington (CNN) - House Republicans will have a truth squad standing by to fact check during Thursday's televised bipartisan White House health care summit, House Minority Leader John Boehner announced Wednesday. And Boehner's truth squad has an unusual characteristic, more than half of the fact-checking team is made up of doctors.I normally wouldn't be excited about Parker Griffith being part of the GOP's policy team but I'm ok with it since he's a doctor talking about health care issues. Otherwise, I think the concept of a GOP Doctor's factcheck team is brilliant. It's guaranteed that the Democrats will be sticking with their talking points. That's their entire presentation. Several of their talking points aren't factually accurate.
Here's a list of the House GOP doctors who will be standing by Thursday:
Dr. Paul Broun, R-Georgia
Dr. Michael Burgess, R-Texas
Dr. Bill Cassidy, R-Louisiana
Dr. John Fleming, R-Louisiana
Dr. Phil Gingrey, R-Georgia
Dr. Parker Griffith, R-Alabama
Dr. Tim Murphy, R-Pennsylvania
Dr. Tom Price, R-Georgia
Dr. Phil Roe, R-Tennessee
In addition to these 9 M.D.'s, Rep. Charles Boustany, R-Louisiana, will be part of the group representing House Republicans at the White House meeting.
On the Senate side, the GOP is also sending two more doctors to meet with President Obama: Sens. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, and John Barrasso, R-Wyoming.
Since mid 2009, Coburn and Barrasso have been hosting "The Senate Doctors Show," a twice weekly health care reform Webcast where the two lawmakers take questions submitted by the public.
Let's start with President Obama's statement that people that like their health care plan can keep it. It isn't difficult to prove that isn't true because people with HSAs can't keep them. They can't keep them because the Democrats' health care legislation mandates everyone buying a government-approved policy. HSAs don't qualify under the Democrats' plans.
I wouldn't just criticize President Obama about that. I'd have the GOP delegation press him on why HSAs weren't allowed in the House or Senate bills. That's how you pivot into presenting a positive solution that's got lots of support with the people.
Another thing Republicans can ask is why President Obama keeps saying that no one making less than $200,000 a year will see their taxes increased when the Democrats' health care bills is loaded with tax increases for people of all income brackets. I'd then use that criticism to highlight Paul Ryan's Patients' Choice Act, which actually reduces health care costs, lowers insurance premiums without raising taxes.
The point is that raising each objection should be followed with a solution that the American people like. You get the American people's attention with a disagreement, stated calmly of course, then impress them with common sense solutions.
If the GOP follows that formula, they'll win the day. They've already had one brilliant idea. Let's see if they follow that up with a brilliant performance Thursday.
Posted Wednesday, February 24, 2010 7:24 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 25-Feb-10 04:54 AM
Hmmm. Hard to be brilliant for six straight hours, but Obama will take up 5 of them, and the chances are excellent that he'll say something honest, or tell an obvious lie, or both.
Comment 2 by Hiram at 25-Feb-10 05:55 AM
Doctors, like other professionals who are used to arguing from authority, are rarely effective persuaders. Nor are they particularly knowledgeable about health care policy.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 25-Feb-10 06:25 AM
They don't have to persuade based on their speaking skills. These doctors just have to be able to point out the difference between what the Democrats say at the summit & what's in the bills. They're perfectly capable of that.
